obtener_contenido_resolucion

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full resolution text, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the return format, potential errors, or authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: one sentence stating the action and resource, plus one sentence offering usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states what it returns (the full text) and when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output structure (e.g., a string vs. object), but overall it provides sufficient context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the only parameter (resolucionId) with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'por su ID (resolucionId)' without adding new meaning or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Obtiene el texto de la resolución completa por su ID' (gets the complete resolution text by ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obtener_fundamentos_y_fallo' by specifying the entire text ('completa').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Útil si deseas leer toda la sentencia' (useful if you want to read the whole ruling). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.